Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: North Carolina; Removal of the State's Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

The Natural Resources Defense Council opposes the EPA's proposal to approve North Carolina's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that removes 19 counties from the vehicle inspection and maintenance program. They argue that the EPA is failing to comply with the Clean Air Act's anti-backsliding provision because the proposal relies on emission reductions from federal mobile source regulations that the EPA has since repealed.

Pete Smith Automotive Group, a family-owned automotive repair and sales business, opposes the proposal to remove OBDII Emission Inspections from 18 North Carolina counties. They argue that removing these requirements will lead to higher rates of deferred maintenance, resulting in poorer air quality and higher long-term repair costs for vehicle owners.

An individual resident supports the EPA's approval of North Carolina's removal of vehicle emissions inspections. They argue that modern vehicle technology has rendered these inspections unnecessary and that the program currently imposes an undue financial and logistical burden on citizens without providing significant environmental benefits.

The Main Street Foundation’s Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement (CRAE) supports the EPA's proposed approval of North Carolina's SIP revision to remove the state's vehicle inspection and maintenance program. They argue that technological advancements and improved air quality have rendered the original justifications for the program obsolete, and that periodic reassessment of legacy regulations is necessary to ensure they remain proportional to current benefits and burdens.

Alexander Spangenberg, owner of a small car inspection business in Raleigh, opposes the elimination of state vehicle emissions inspection programs. He argues that removing these inspections would harm public health, reduce highway funding, and lead to the closure of small businesses and job losses.

An individual is writing to support the EPA's approval of North Carolina's request to remove vehicle emissions testing requirements in specific counties. The commenter argues that the removal promotes fairness, saves residents time and money, and is justified by modern vehicle technology and existing air quality data.

A North Carolina resident supports the EPA's proposal to remove vehicle emissions testing requirements in specific counties. The commenter argues that modern vehicle technology and improved air quality make the testing unnecessary, while also highlighting the financial and logistical burden the requirement places on seniors and low-income individuals.

A resident of Forsyth County, North Carolina, supports the EPA's approval to eliminate vehicle emissions testing in several counties. The commenter argues that modern vehicle technology and onboard diagnostics make annual testing unnecessary, costly, and inconvenient for drivers.

A resident of Forsyth County, North Carolina, supports the EPA's approval to remove vehicle emissions testing requirements in their county. The commenter argues that modern vehicles have advanced emissions controls and that removing the requirement would eliminate unnecessary costs and inconveniences for working families without compromising air quality standards.

A private vehicle owner supports the removal of additional emissions testing in 19 North Carolina counties. The commenter argues that current air quality standards are sufficient and that the testing represents an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers given the current economy.